Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Misza13/Questions for the candidate

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Questions from Heimstern

My questions are kind of nitty-gritty, but I'm not looking for really specific answers as much as trying to see your thought process and approaches to the issues.

1. What is your philosophy on how to handle edit warriors? Under what circumstances should the Committee ban users who continually edit war, and when should they use lesser sanctions, such as paroles or editing restrictions? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding what sanctions are appropriate?

Edit wars should be considered on a case by case basis. It is rarely obvious why certain parties push for certain revisions of articles - there might be a conflict of interest involved, they might have a political agenda or they might be plainly trolling. To ascertain that requires involving oneself in the debate and getting to know the parties, which is all more difficult when the situation gets hot. In such cases short (up to several days) blocks work best, but long-term bans only cause frustration and tend to spill extra vitriol. This is where "lesser sanctions", as you call them, step in. An example being a 1RR restriction on a set of articles, which doubled with checkuser control (in cases of suspected sockpuppetry) provides a way to help people understand the values of collaborative editing.

2. What about uncivil editors (including those making personal attacks)? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding whether and how to sanction them?

I may be biased on this as I value civility greatly, but it is my opinion that uncivil editors should be continuously reminded why is it important to maintain a harmonious editing atmosphere, to the level of blocking them should their incivility become gross or persistent (even if such blocks seem more punitive than preventative in such cases). Personal attacks are a more serious form of incivility as they hurt (and usually hard) a specific editor in the stead of collaterally hitting the community at large and should be treated accordingly more harshly. As of factors involved, I don't think of any mitigating circumstances as such behavior is simply unacceptable.

3. When should an administrator be desysopped? In particular, how should a sysop's failings be weighed against his or her useful administrative actions, and when do the failings merit removal of adminship? When, if ever, is it appropriate to use a temporary suspension, such as was used in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson?

I consider two main factors when considering a "quality of a sysop": 1) failure rate as defined by misapplied actions to all actions (but not with a specific %-threshold in mind) and more specifically, the damage caused by those actions; 2) communication with other users (with special care about heeding fellow admins' comments). Specifically, desysoppings should occur when an admin shows consistent and long-term bad judgment that outweighs any positive work done and/or he fails to communicate properly with regard to his actions and/or shows no understanding of error.
There's also wheel warring (the definition of which is very flexible when it comes to practice) with rarely should be applied at all (precisely due to the polemical definition of a wheel war) and rather be replaced with simple blocks (except perhaps in cases where the admin in question unblocks himself and continues to war, which is a sign of complete on his side). Finally, there are compromised accounts, but that's pretty straightforward.
As of temporary desysoppings, I do not believe they work any wonders - if an admin lost their bit because of consistently impaired judgment, he simply should not be an admin at this moment. They may again apply to the community at a later date, should they prove to have it improved.

4. Under what circumstances should the Committee consider an appeal of a community ban?

This is very much a case by case question, but in general it depends on evidence/behavior that lead to the ban in the first place and new evidence provided (if any). Should the Committee decide that the community ban might have been in fact a community lynch and a general overreaction (yes, very much a case by case situation), they should consider the appeal in greater detail (and possibly in private channels to avoid the perceived "angry mob"'s influence on the case).

5. Two recent cases, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone, were dismissed with no decision made after the Committee had been unable to come to a decision concerning wrongdoing or sanctions. In both cases, the arbitrators seem to have felt that the cases' issues were no longer current, either because the community had resolved the issue or because a participant was no longer active at Wikipedia. Now, consider a similar situation in which the Committee cannot agree on finding concerning user conduct or on appropriate sanctions, but in which the case issues are clearly current. What should be done in such a case?

I think that such situation is unlikely to happen. Even if there was no consensus among the arbitrators as to the more "drastic" solutions (bans, desysoppings), they tend to implement some middle-ground solutions (such as "Parties are reminded..." or "X is admonished"). But should they be unable to work out such a solution, there's always the highest instance... :-)

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your questions. Миша13 20:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from xaosflux

  1. As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of Oversight and Checkuser permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 23:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC) (Note:Generic question for all candidates, other candidates are WELCOME to copy this question in to their subpages)[reply]
    I'd treat these two bits separately. The legal part (i.e. be of legal age, identify oneself to the Foundation) is of course common. It is my assumption (I may be in error here) that Oversight is a much less-used power. Thus, I would limit its access to ArbCom members only. This may change in the future should a need arise for more people with this permission, but I can also imagine this issue rectified by a simple increase of the number of arbitrators. Checkuser is on the other hand an ability of high demand. With increasing exposure to vandalism and permanent RFCU backlogs, I believe the permission should be handed out slightly more liberally (not like crazy though, although wikis where all sysops have checkuser work too). I would set a rough threshold of one year of adminship and good judgment (occasional mishaps are always possible) – the actual evaluation of said judgment is left to arbitrators' discretion. Миша13 20:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from east718

  1. Do you feel that the Arbitration Committee takes too long to close cases? Or do you feel that they act too hastily and some important facets of cases occasionally fall through the cracks? Either way, what will you do to remedy it?
    In general, it is my impression that cases take longer than they should (and can't really recall one that went too hastily). I could also point a case that in my opinion was dissolved by the Committee because of the overwhelming evidence gathered (it also took very long, so my guess is the arbitrators got tired). But that's really a problem of manpower – all an arbitrator can do is work harder really (and Jimbo could appoint more, too).
  2. Can you give some examples of proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies on voting subpages that you disagree with? How about some proposals that actually passed? If you consider any completed arbitration cases to be failures in their intent, scope, or remedy, could you please name them and your reasoning why?
    I'd like to avoid naming specific cases as that would in a way undermine the Committee's authority, but truthfully, I wouldn't be able to point any cases where a decision was strongly against my guts, either. I might have disagreed on a few occasions with the final wording of a resolution or with regard to the "level of punishment" though.

Thanks, east.718 at 23:59, 11/4/2007

Thank you. Миша13 20:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Wanderer57

Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused?

Thanks, Wanderer57 01:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the overall, my impression is that most RfCs have been fair towards the accused users (although I would prefer a wording of "user in question"), but then again I rarely have tracked those behind-the-scene ones. What attracts most attention (thank the "IRC cabal" for that) are those "Big Bang" RfCs that are characterized by the abundance of the following phrases: "admin abuse", "trolling", "incivility" as well as many references to hot and lenghty AN/I discussions. Now there are a bit different, as they tend to be initiated under an impulse, with emotions still blazing. These tend to be overly vile, POVish and often strongly biased in the opening statement. These gather many "outside views" and comments but usually dissolve into "no result". Миша13 20:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ultraexactzz

Best wishes in your candidacy, and in your tenure on the committee should you be elected. I'm asking this question to most of the candidates, so I apologize in advance if you've already answered a similar question from another editor.

Some background. I was an avid reader of the encyclopedia until December 2005, when I decided to begin editing. I had started to delve into the workings of the project, reading about AfD's and the ANI and, most interestingly, the work of the Arbitration Committee. When elections came around in December 2005/January 2006, I thought that a fresh perspective might be of value to the committee. So, in my haste to pitch in, I made my 13th edit (!) by nominating myself to the Arbitration Committee.

Needless to say, it did not go well.

However, I did find some editors who supported my candidacy on moral grounds, offering encouragement and concuring that a different perspective was of value in the committee's work. Looking back, it got me thinking, as this round of elections begins: What is the most valuable trait for an arbitrator? Your statement and answers to other questions will address this at length, I'm sure, but if you had to distill the essence of being an effective arbitrator into one word, what would that word be? ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my perception of an arbitrator's job, I would name three main traits that compose the work:
  1. Ability to listen to others (in a metaphorical sense - on wiki that is "read others" of course), in order to fully understand the parties involved.
  2. Reasoning skills to be able to draw correct conclusions from presented facts.
  3. Some degree of integrity of their own, as arbitrators are not (and should not be) robots, with each decision marked with their own salt.
The above of course corresponds with how the arbitration process goes: 1) case and evidence presented, 2) facts established, 3) decision reached. Миша13 20:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ragesoss

In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss 03:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand the (rather vague) definition on WP:SPOV, the differences are subtle. They have a common ground focusing on the quality of articles, but while NPOV concentrates on presenting all views of a topic, the other is a close cousin of Wikipedia:Verifiability, another core policy, focusing on (d'oh!) verifiability and adherence to facts and theories. Миша13 21:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Soleil

  1. What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process, and/or the committe? This includes anything related to the committee and its actions. If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues? — Soleil (formerly I) 03:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From the outside, all I can tell is that the Committee is undermanned – cases sometimes take forever to proceed and not always all issues are addressed. As I have already replied to east718 above, all an arbitrator can do is work harder and hope that Jimbo appoints more for the job. The process itself I find pretty consistent and the members of the Committee reasonable – this opinion might change of course with an inside view. Миша13 21:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Majorly

These are generic questions, so apologies if you've answered them elsewhere :)

  1. How do you think that your personality would make you a good arbitrator?
  2. Do you have any experience in real life that could relate to activities arbitrators have to deal with?

Thanks for your time. Majorly (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. This is probably covered by my reply to #Question from Ultraexactzz above - all of which traits I claim to have. :)
  2. No, not really, except some minor things like breaking up friends' arguments using a cluebat - I have often discovered that angry people, when confronted with cold reasoning, either convert to "believers of reason" or become even more angry in which case are best ignored an left to rot in their frustration (and possibly convert later). ;)
Миша13 21:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Addhoc

Is there any dispute resolution involvement that you could link to? A user conduct or article RfC, a mediation case, or even a wikiquette alert? Thanks! Addhoc 13:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see... Not much it seems from the look of my contribs now... From the top, it would be my involvement with the issue of adminbots and a process (or lack thereof) of approving them, spread out between the two "famous" bot RfAs (RedirectCleanupBot and TempDeletionBot). I have commented in an interesting case of the BJAODN "wheel war" case. I am involved in a sorta-ongoing (and also quite pointless, at least to me) debate on WT:IAR, which mostly centers on the inclusion (or not) of several words from the policy. Back in time, there is a continuous issue of non-free images, BetacommandBot and Gnome (bot) tagging them and their operators who received all sorts of abusive messages in return - in a joint effort with several other editors, I have assisted (to my best abilities and civility) in replying to the queries (yet you'd have to dig deep in the archives of User talk:Betacommand and User talk:Eagle 101 to find them). Even further back, there was the infamous {{spoiler}} eradication, which I advocated for (on WT:SPOILER) and even helped with to some extent - the most relevant thread on my talk page is here. In the fallout of the Essjay controversy, I have disputed against Jimbo's solution to the problem (again, talk page archives), and summed up my views in an essay. Finally, in ancient history, I used to be massively involved with defending userboxes from deletion. Most of the discussions could be found archived here; I also wrote a proposal/solution for the problem, which (with some modifications) got eventually implemented under the name of "german solution". Миша13 19:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from jd2718

  1. I've seen it written that to be a good Arbitrator a WPian first needs to be a good editor. Can you explain why you disagree (if in fact you do).
  2. I'd like to ask you how old you are and what you do, but I think that I could be satisfied with much less. Are you a student? Full-time employed? Set your own hours? (looking for some idea of stability and durability, seeing that we have had issues with Arbitrators inactive for far longer than we expected). Jd2718 01:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. If by "good editor" we understand "keen on writing articles", then I disagree with that statement. An arbitrator's (as well as sysop's, bureaucrat's) job is not about writing articles by its definition. Instead, people wear different hats. An arbitrator may switch hit hat to that of a regular editor's but if he sucks at it, he may wish not to involve himself at all. Of course, good understanding of Wikipedia's content policies is a must, but knowing the rules of traffic and actually driving a car are two different things.
  2. I am 24 years old. I hold a master's degree in mathematics and am currently a full-time employee in a bank. I consider my life pretty stable, but one never knows for sure. ;-) Миша13 19:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Neil

Are you still using a bot logged into your sysop account to mass-delete images? Neil ☎ 13:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am. Миша13 19:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A more exhaustive statement on the subject of adminbots may be found in reply to Cryptic's questions, below. Миша13 19:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Cryptic

Marudubshinki (rfar) and Betacommand (rfar) were both desysopped in part for running unauthorized adminbots; the latter case includes a principle that explicitly forbids such bots.

  1. Given your admission in your candidacy statement that you have written unauthorized adminbots, why should the community continue to trust you as an administrator, let alone an arbitrator? —Cryptic 14:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. What would you have done differently in those two arbitration cases? —Cryptic 14:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thank you for your questions - I was kinda hoping for someone to raise the issue of adminbots. And now on to answers...
  1. This is a complex one and there are several points to consider:
    1. This is verging on wikilawyering, but all depends on your definition of "unauthorized". Of course, if by that you mean "approved by BRFA and RfA", then yes, they're unauthorized.
    2. Some more lawyering: "should not" as defined by (for example) RFC2119 does not strictly forbid (as in MUST NOT) but rather tell us that "there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label." Which is exactly what I did - after some initial testing (the bot started as a simple interactive deletion tool), sampling and double-guessing, I have weighted the implications, estimated the error rate (which in fact turned even lower in the long run) and implemented the solution. There's this policy, you know, which I figured allowed me to exactly that, given that: 1) the job has to be done and 2) there is no reasonable process that could approve the bot (read: adminbot policy).
    3. Now we're getting to the "trust" part. I completely fail to understand why running adminbots is considered to be somehow inherently evil, to the point that anyone doing so is considered to have failed the community's trust. I have been trusted with the buttons and I'm making a good use of them - anyone is clear to flame my talk page should I mess something up, as I kinda take full responsibility for my actions, don't I?
    4. And finally to the point, i.e. why can people trust me, where I again wonder why running an adminbot is something bad - it is not that I have written them with some devious intent to damage Wikipedia - quite the contrary. As noted above, they are means to enforce the Foundation's resolution and, as someone once said, have an accuracy that some flesh-and-blood admins could envy. Also, the more possible damage could be cause in the case of an error, the more effort do I put into designing my tools. Finally, it is not that I write them completely on my own, no - I'd communicate with people who regularly do backlogs by hand, ask for their experience, then try on my own and finally move on to designing an automation.
    5. Lastly, let's refer to the arbitration cases in my context. My impression from them is not that Maru or Beta were desysopped as a result of running adminbots, but rather insufficient (or even lack of) communication with the community once it has become apparent that the bots make too many errors. Also, they not only have run adminbots, but also regular bots, on their own account once the approval for the task has been revoked. I believe I am communicating well with regard to my admin actions; in fact I routinely undelete up to several images per week - nearly all of which were lost due to the article they were used in being vandalized or some misunderstanding of policy on the uploader's part.
  2. The end result in both cases was pretty much expected and the "findings" properly established - I wouldn't argue with that. However, as the community is evidently in a Catch-22 situation and has turned to the Committee, I would expect ArbCom to take a more active role in developing a solution (for example, a reasonable policy on adminbots). But this has yet to happen.
Again thanks for your questions - I believe this is my most elaborate statement on the adminbot problem I have issued to date. Миша13 19:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Cla68

In looking at your contributions, I see that you've done an exceptional amount of good work in the area of administration of the project. Have you significantly edited any articles that are currently at Good or Featured Article status? Cla68 06:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - I kinda suck at writing articles. Never found a topic I could write about that didn't have an article already or knew anything that wasn't already included (in fact, on several occasions, my additions have been removed as either non-notable or uninteresting - quite discouraging). Regardless, I stick to a belief that everyone should do whatever they excel in. I am a technical mind, so I do the background (nuking fair use), wikignomish (fixing broken things in a way that no one notices) and administrative stuff. Миша13 21:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from WJBscribe

A few questions from me. I'm asking all candidates the same thing. I don't think anyone's asked these yet but I they have, feel free to just point me to a previous answer.

  1. Appointment to the Arbitration Committee is for three years - a lot can change on Wikipedia in three years. Should there be a mechanism by which the Community can recall an arbitrator in whose judgment it loses confidence? Do you have any thoughts as to what form that mechanism should take?
  2. ArbCom is responsible for assigning checkuser and oversight access to users of the English Wikipedia. Would you advocate withdrawing the access in the case of someone someone who failed to make sufficient use of it? If yes, what sort of activity level would you say is required?
  3. Where the Community finds itself unable to reach a consensus on the formulation of a given policy, do you think ArbCom has a role to play in determining that policy?

Thanks for your time and good luck. WjBscribe 23:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It's hard for me to imagine it at this moment. While in the spirit of CAT:AOR I feel such process should exist, I am also aware that arbitrators deal with many threats to Wikipedia and can potentially have more enemies than an average administrator, making any such community process prone to bias. With no clear view of my own, I would nevertheless welcome any suggestions and an open discussion.
  2. Certainly not in the case of current arbitrators, but I suppose the question refers to non-members. In that case, I would set a rough threshold of several handled checkuser cases per month (subject to a case-by-case review given the current overall activity on RFCU) - such sensitive bits should not be lying around unused for security reasons. Similarly with oversight, but no opinion as to an exact threshold here as I have no clue whatsoever as to how often is it used.
  3. Yes, but only when asked to do so. Traditionally, ArbCom only considers cases presented to it. So, should the community find itself unable to make a decision as a whole and asked for the Committee's ruling, the latter would be obliged to provide one (being a body "that exists to impose binding solutions").
Миша13 22:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Revolving Bugbear

In light of the recent ruling in the French courts re WMF:

The servers for English Wikipedia are hosted in the United States, and the WMF is incorporated in the United States (Florida, specifically). But Wikipedians can access and edit Wikipedia from anywhere in the world (with the possible exceptions of China and Burma, maybe, but that's neither here nor there). Given that, as an ArbCom member, you might be dealing with issues such as possible legal threats against Wikipedia, whose laws does Wikipedia need to follow? What should be done if there is a legitimate concern raised by a Wikipedian that an article may be in violation of US law? What about law of a country other than the US? - Revolving Bugbear 16:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a lawyer, but as far as I know, the US is a sovereign country and outside of foreign jurisdiction. Therefore, Wikipedia articles should first and foremost conform to local laws, that is of US and the state of Florida. In cases of legitimate concerns over our content, I would name the Foundation's legal counsel as the first contact to determine whether a specific article should be taken down. This does not at all mean that we should disrespect queries from other countries - yet this is more a matter of PR that legal status. Миша13 22:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Piotrus

  1. Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict or interests in?
  2. If the arbitrator is active, should he be expected to comment in workshop / arbcom discussion pages?
  3. Do you think some editors should be more equal than others? I.e. should incivility of experienced editor - one who registered years ago and wrote or contributed to many articles - be treated differently from incivility of a relative newcomer?
  4. How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR?

-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. In a perfect world, yes. However this ain't any of the sorts, plus we're all humans, more often than not have real lives to attend to, families to feed, etc. And on top of that, it's still a voluntary job like most of what we do around here.
  2. As long as he stays impartial, by all means - ArbCom decisions should not be made by out-of-the-blue voting. On some hotter topics it may be required that the arbitrators steer the case so as it does not turn into a disaster.
  3. While it may appear that some members are "more equal", but in fact long-standing users have gained some "credits" for their contributions to the Project but lose (or spend if you will) them on "wrongdoings" - once they reach a certain point where the community decides that there's less gain than harm from their presence, things get grim.
  4. Enforcement of civility standards it harder than 3RR, because there are not black-and-white standards for it (while at the same time most people can count to 3). It might be difficult to discern incivility from a bad mood or simple frustration. Gross incivility should however be put out by all and any means necessary.
Миша13 22:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Points of View: When does including "notable" points of view become problematic for NPOV?

When I first came on to Wikipedia a year and a half ago the project was more centered around "Just the facts" - articles were more crafted around the who, the what, the when and the where, with some emphasis on the why. Of late, the why has taken on a dominant role in articles on contentious issues, with each side in the political spectrum putting forth their own "notable" mouthpiece to spin what the who, the what, the when and the where means. Do you think this is a positive development? Do you think this is educational, or do you think it makes Wikipedia another platform for the dichotomized public debate--that there are two sides to every issues, and two views--that is prevalent in American society?--David Shankbone 18:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia aims to be the "sum total of human knowledge". Understanding that from a scientific point of view, "the who, the what, the when and the where" are more important to me personally. I nevertheless value NPOV, unless it compromises other values - should scientific quality of an article be endangered because a political agenda is being pushed from all sides, content should be removed/reduced to straight facts rather than expanded, as Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda, even if it's presented in a neutral and balanced way. Миша13 19:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Marlith

What do you want Wikipedia to be ten years from now? Marlith T/C 01:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! 10 years is close to eternity these days. Hard to predict what could happen until then (we might be using Web 4.0 already). I can wish however that Wikipedia becomes a more reliable source of information than it is now. While the number of articles still grows at some geometric rate, I predict that in 2 or 3 years we will have reached the reasonable limits of content inclusion - sure, genuinely new articles will still be created (even discounting the tons of crap that gets added and flushed every second), but the overall rate will be much lower. From the onwards, there will be only one aim left: quality. That said, I wish we had at least one million featured articles in ten years' time - quite a reasonable goal, I'd say. Миша13 19:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from AniMate

Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. However, first and foremost, we are here to work on an encyclopedia. Editing and adding to the project should be everyone's first priority. Can you point out some of your recent mainspace contributions that you are most proud of? AniMate 12:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ on the assumption that editing articles "should be everyone's first priority". I suck at this activity and don't deny it. It does not mean however that I do not help to build an encyclopedia - or rather, help to protect what we have achieved so far. My focus is currently on two aspects: 1) countervandalism (not necessarily by active vandalfighting - I work behind the scenes as a CVN staffer and bot operator), 2) image policy compliance (which is most obvious when you examine my deletion log). Therefore, no mainspace contributions in the sense of Special:Contributions, but I contribute to the Project nonetheless. Миша13 16:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Cla68

  • So that it won't look like I'm targeting anyone in particular, I'm asking this question of all the candidates. Were you a recipient on the email list used by Durova to distribute her evidence used to wrongfully block !! as detailed in this ArbCom case? Cla68 (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Rschen7754

  1. What are your views regarding debates such as WP:RFAR/HWY and WP:SRNC? (In terms of dispute resolution).
  2. a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) own articles or c) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
  3. Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
  4. a) What is your definition of canvassing? b) Does it include project newsletters or IRC?
  5. a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?

Thank you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. That case could probably be called unusual as it raised content issues. It has however seemingly put an end to a pointless war and stimulated the community to adopt a resolution to the issue. It those terms, it can be called successful.
  2. a) WikiProjects exist to group people that have some knowledge on a particular subject and organize their efforts to improve Wikipedia's content that falls under the scope of the WikiProject. b) No, of course they do not own any articles (nobody does) but the sad truth is that they are overzealous in enforcing their standards..., c) ...which is not necessarily bad in principle (it is welcome when related articles conform to common standards) but is unacceptable when it leads to those not in the "cabal" being outed and driven off from contributing.
  3. Impose? No. Suggest? By all means. This follows from the fact that no project really owns any articles, so imposing any standards makes no sense at all. It is not about being a child project or not - it is reasonable ideas that should be considered and possibly adopted, not "political" ones.
  4. a) Canvassing in general is about seeking more voters or a wider input. As such, it is not reprehensible. On Wikipedia however, the word carries more of a pejorative meaning where it stands for soliciting people that would vote in favor of the person canvassing. b) Canvassing is canvassing, regardless of the medium used for communication. Yet again, when done in a neutral and non-disruptive way it is welcome just like a variety of opinions is.
  5. a) Hard to define in general, but in your scenario, the edit should preferably be reverted (best with a non-automatic edit summary while at it) and the user in question kindly pointed to a relevant MoS or whatever applies in that case. b) With great care. As already noted, no automatic rollbacks at first (we're still speaking apparent good-faith edits) - these (and eventually blocks) should only come in the case of an extremely stubborn/uncommunicative editor. Protection is almost never necessary in the case of a single editor - blocks are preferable so as not to lock out others.
Миша13 21:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Krator

How do you think your extensive knowledge of the technical side of Wikipedia can contribute to arbitration cases involving a non-technical subject? User:Krator (t c) 14:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not hoping for it to help me with arbitration cases (I have my trusty brain for that) as much as with other areas of Arbitrator's "job" - most notably CheckUser. Миша13 21:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Risker

There is currently a proposal at the Village Pump (Policy) that policies be protected from free editing[1]. Amongst the reasons for this suggestion is to prevent parties from revising policy in a way that favours their point of view, to prevent edit wars on active policies, and to maintain a stable policy base so that users can rest assured that they are staying within policy. Do you believe that this is a good course of action for the encyclopedia? Please respond from your perspective as a prospective member of Arbcom who would be responsible for interpreting policy (but feel free to add your opinion as an editor as well). I will be asking this question of all candidates. Thank you. Risker (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea has its merits and I'm leaning to support it. Wikipedia indeed has a problem with policy stability and this provides a solution (as well as a stable environment for the Committee to operate in - it makes life no easier when important policies change shape from one case to another). While Wikipedia's articles are open to changes (and I'm personally somewhat opposed to stable versions), the policies lay a foundation to creating an encyclopedia - having them in a state of a constant flux is not helpful to the end result. Protection of policy pages quite effectively eliminates disruption while at the same time does not exclude the possibility of change through a discussion - reasonable ideas should not have problems with getting through. Миша13 21:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Blue Tie

  1. Can/Should Arbcom create wikipedia policy? Or develop a proposed policy for community vote?
  2. Do you intend to help create or propose wikipedia policy as an Arbcom member?

--Blue Tie 13:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Only when specifically requested by the community (due to inablity to formulate one on its own). See also WJBscribe's third question above.
  2. Under conditions as explained in 1. (i.e. only when asked to), yes.
Миша13 23:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from SilkTork

How would you vote on this proposed principle: "While anyone may edit Wikipedia without the need to register, that meta-editing activities such as voting in an ArbCom Election are best protected by registering than by sleuthing". SilkTork *SilkyTalk 17:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Irpen

The questions below refer to the issues of ArbCom's integrity and transparency that needs to be maintained despite the universally accepted view that certain things should remain private.

Mailing list

Arbitrator's private mailing list, known as Arbcom-l and the arbitrators only IRC channel may obviously include information that cannot be made public under any circumstances. Additionally, being aware of the intra-ArbCom communication may give case parties an obvious advantage over their opponents. Who do you think should have access to such a list besides current arbitrators whose community trust has been confirmed in election that took place within the last 3 years? Should it include users that where never voted on? Should it include users who were voted 4, 5 or more years ago? Should users who are parties of the case, comment on the case, present evidence on the case, be allowed to have read access to the list where the case is discussed by the decision makers?

Secret evidence and secret communication of arbitrators with non-arbitrators

What is your opinion about the parties of the case (or anyone) contacting arbitrators privately about the case? This is not an hypothetical issue and it has been brought up in past cases. The obvious drawback is that if charges are brought secretly, the accused cannot see them and respond. Would you support an amendment of the arbitration policy that would prohibit parties from writing to arbitrators privately in relation to the cases? Giving evidence that has to be private due to its sensitive nature would of course be exempted but should this be the only exception?

Recusals

Arbitrators who are parties of the case or have an involvement with the case parties that can reasonably be considered to affect their impartiality are expected to recuse. What involvement constitutes the ground for a recusal has traditionally been left to the arbitrators' own discretion, except for obvious cases when arbitrators themselves are case parties. While recused arbitrators, especially the case parties, are allowed to take an active part in cases, collect, present and discuss evidence at the case pages, the same way as ordinary parties, they retain the opportunity to read the thoughts of other arbitrators at Arbcom-L and respond to those privately. It is technically difficult to exclude arbitrators from communication on a case they are involved. But would you support a prohibition for such arbitrators to discuss the case with other arbitrators through the private communication channels, except when submitting evidence whose nature warrants non-publicity?

Community oversight over the arbitration policy

Policies are written by the community and not by the ArbCom. However, at some point the ArbCom made it clear that the arbitration policy is exceptional in this respect and that the ArbCom intends to control the main policy that governs its own action rather than be governed by the policy written by the community. Would you support returning the control of the ArbCom policy back to the community or should the ArbCom write its policy itself?

Question from Mrs.EasterBunny

As a member of ArbCom, would you place more emphasis on content or behavior? For example, in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds case, there is voluminous discussion on whether SevenofDiamonds is really NuclearUmpf, but no discussion on what got NuclearUmpf banned in the first place. If SevenofDiamonds=NuclearUmpf, then this is a behavioral problem but doesn't have to be a content problem. If SevenofDiamonds edit was reasonable (I have not researched it) would it make a difference?

The above may not be the best example but it's one that I recently saw because I can't remember the parties involved in similar cases. On occasion, I have seen an editing admin block someone because of a dispute in editing an article that both of them are editing and the block seemed questionable because there is no overt POV. The blocked editor then probably feels the block is unjustified and creates a sock. Many times, people running for WP office will cite a clear cut case of someone with bad editing and bad behavior. However, what if there is good editing and improper block (which would point to admin misconduct about content), followed by sock creation justified because the block was improper (which would point to editor misconduct about behavior)? Does the first crime excuse the second? Or is the second one crime much more serious and punishable? (This is not an easy question because excusing the first crime by the admin would tend to increase the workload of ArbCom because it allows admin to do a lot with less oversight. However, excusing the second crime might seem to encourage socks). Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from wbfergus

What is your position on the following?

  • A policy page has had a very active discussion for many months. All sides (loosely termed 'pro-change', 'anti-change' and 'issue-specific') of proposed changes have made their cases back and forth numerous times. The 'pro-change' group is mainly users, with a few Admins. The 'anti-change' group is mainly Admins (including those who helped write the policy over the years) and a few users. The 'issue-specific' group is a mixed collection of users and Admins, but mainly users. All three groups constitute around 40-50 people total, per announcements on the Village Pump and related policies, to garner more widespread community involvement either way.
  1. After numerous discussions, and comments over a span of several days to several weeks on specific issues, what should constitute a consensus? 60%, 75%, 90%, or unanimous approval?
  2. If around 75% agree to a change, is it appropriate for Admins (especially those who helped write the policy) to revert changes and protect the page from further edits against their approval?
  3. Is it appropriate for 6 or 7 Admins to more or less block changes to a policy through protection and reverts, when very active discussions have been ongoing and the majority of those participating constructively (not just saying "No" or "Oppose" without constructive comments) agree to changes?
  4. Would it be appropriate for such a policy page which does clearly have a disputed section to have a tag in that section stating that section is under dispute and to participate on the talk page?
  5. Should policies solely dictate acceptable and unacceptable content, behaviour, etc., or should they also define Wikipedia-specific terms and definitions (without stating so) that conflict with usage in different disciplines, or should such terms and definitions be more appropriately suited in a guideline linked to and from the policy?
  6. Do you agree that policies are meant for enforcement or 'enforceable actions', while guidelines are meant to give guidance?

wbfergus Talk 15:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I feel that I need to close my questions to all candidates, as one of the editors in the above 'subject' has filed an ArbCom request. As such, it could be interpreted as unseemly or whatever for these issues to be addressed in this forum. I was in the process of cancelling my questions and replying in an RfC and the related ArbCom request when I had to leave to take my wife to a Dr. appointment, so pardon the delay in cancelling this. wbfergus Talk 21:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Pinkville

Wikipedia is a community that produces and maintains a (still-nascent) encyclopaedia. This community has particular social and political structures that define it and that, presumably, affect the character, quality, and depth of its encyclopaedic output. Can you briefly summarise some political and social aspects of the Wikipedia community that you consider important or noteworthy, that perhaps need to be challenged or developed? How does the structure of Wikipedia encourage or inhibit access to decision-making and issues of power/control? Or does any of that matter? And what are the implications for the Arbitration Committee and its members? Pinkville (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Candidate_statements/Misza13/Questions_for_the_candidate&oldid=1117611415"